LANDPOWER AND CRISES:
ARMY ROLES AND MISSIONS IN
SMALLER-SCALE CONTINGENCIES
DURING THE 1990s
Conrad C. Crane
January 2001
*****
The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of
Defense, or the U.S. Government. This report is cleared for public release; distribution is
unlimited.
*****
Comments pertaining to this report are invited and should be forwarded to: Director,
Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 122 Forbes Ave., Carlisle, PA 170135244. Copies of this report may be obtained from the Publications and Production Office by
calling commercial (717) 245-4133, FAX (717) 245-3820, or via the Internet at
rita.rummel@carlisle.army.mil
*****
Most 1993, 1994, and all later Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) monographs are
available on the SSI Homepage for electronic dissemination. SSI's Homepage address is:
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usassi/welcome.htm
*****
The Strategic Studies Institute publishes a monthly e-mail newsletter to update the
national security community on the research of our analysts, recent and forthcoming
publications, and upcoming conferences sponsored by the Institute. Each newsletter also
provides a strategic commentary by one
of our research analysts. If you are interested in receiving this newsletter, please let us know
by e-mail at outreach@awc.carlisle.army.mil or by calling (717) 245-3133.
ISBN 1-58487-043-5
ii
FOREWORD
Though the end of the Cold War brought a decrease in the likelihood of global war
and significant reductions in U.S. military force levels, demands placed on remaining
American military forces increased rather than subsided. Over the past decade, American
political leaders have used military forces much more frequently to achieve national policy
objectives. Most of the post-Cold War deployments fall under the general heading of
smaller-scale contingencies (SSCs), but their cumulative effect has placed considerable
burdens on the Army, in particular.
In this study, Dr. Conrad Crane analyzes the role of landpower in the 170 SSCs
conducted during the last decade. He disaggregates such contingencies into engagement,
enhanced deterrence, hostility, and stabilization phases, and discusses the military’s role in
each one. Though cruise missiles and aircraft have been the primary policy tool for actual
hostilities, the Army has been the predominant service in the other phases, especially for
stabilization. He points out that no major foreign policy objectives have been achieved from
major theater deployments during the last decade without some form of significant longterm Army involvement in the region after the crisis has been resolved.
Nonetheless, there have been many flaws in the Army's performance during the
stabilization phase of these SSCs. Using historical examples and unit after-action reports, Dr.
Crane points out recurring problems in planning, execution, and force structure for such
missions. He concludes that despite the desires of American leaders to limit the nationbuilding involvement of the troops they deploy, the capability mismatch between military
and civilian organizations, combined with the require-ments of peace operations and
character of American soldiers, makes such a result unavoidable. He argues that the Army
iii
especially needs to accept some degree of nation-building as its mission, and adapt its force
structure, training, and planning accordingly. He also presents some other recommendations
to enhance further the Army's ability to meet the full spectrum of future challenges it will
face.
There is much in this study to support the current program for Army Transformation, as well as to present a case for a larger active force structure, especially for combat
support and combat service support. Dr. Crane's analysis and recommendations also merit
examination as part of the Quadrennial Defense Review process. Statistical analysis of the
period since America became the world's lone superpower suggests that its armed forces will
face an increasing number of SSCs. The services will have to find a way to accomplish these
most-likely missions while still retaining full ability to win those major wars that remain the
most dangerous threat to national security.
DOUGLAS C. LOVELACE, JR.
Director
Strategic Studies Institute
iv
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR
CONRAD C. CRANE joined the Strategic Studies Institute in September 2000 after 26
years of military service that concluded with 9 years as Professor of History at the U.S.
Military Academy. He has written or edited books on the Civil War, World War I, World
War II, and Korea, and published articles on military issues in such journals as The Journal of
Strategic Studies, The Journal of Military History, The Historian, and Aerospace Historian, as well as in
a number of collections and reference books. He holds a B.S. from the U.S. Military
Academy along with an M.A. and Ph.D. from Stanford University. He is also a graduate of
the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College and the U.S. Army War College.
v
vi
LANDPOWER AND CRISES:
ARMY ROLES AND MISSIONS
IN SMALLER-SCALE CONTINGENCIES
DURING THE 1990s
You may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it
clean of life--but if you desire to defend it, protect it, and keep it for civilization, you
must do it on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men
into the mud.
T.R. Fehrenbach 1
Introduction.
Prior to World War II, the majority of instances where American armed forces were
used abroad involved Marine or Navy actions to protect U.S. citizens or promote national
interests. The use of American military forces (especially the Army) expanded considerably
with the advent of the Cold War and America's ascension to superpower status. 2 Since the
end of the Cold War, there has been another significant increase in the use of military forces
(with special emphasis again on the Army) by American political leaders to achieve policy
objectives. Except for the major theater war of Operation DESERT STORM, these
deployments have fallen under the broad heading of smaller-scale contingencies (SSCs).
While this overall increase in theater military operations began in the aftermath of Operation
DESERT STORM, it stabilized at a high level during the first full year of the Clinton
administration. Since mid-1993, American military forces have engaged in 170 separate SSCs,
ranging from humanitarian assistance to peacekeeping, averaging between 20 and 30 a
month. 3 (See Figure 1.) During this same time frame, the administration implemented a
National Security Strategy that involved the military heavily in peacetime engagement
1
2
January 1993 to October 1993 -- transition period
October 1993 to October 2000--number of operations fluctuates, but rate
of increase stabilizes (slower rate of increase)
§
§
Figure 1. SSC Operations – January 1990 to September 2000.
January 1990 to January 1993 -- increasing number of operations
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
§
Number of Operations
35
Jan-90
May-90
Sep-90
Jan-91
May-91
Sep-91
Jan-92
May-92
Sep-92
Jan-93
May-93
Sep-93
Jan-94
May-94
Sep-94
Jan-95
May-95
Sep-95
Jan-96
May-96
Sep-96
Jan-97
May-97
Sep-97
Jan-98
May-98
Sep-98
Jan-99
May-99
Sep-99
Jan-00
May-00
Sep-00
activities to shape the environment to preclude the advent of a crisis that could require even
more forces. The purpose of this monograph is to look at the typical roles of Army forces
during the life cycle of these SSCs, beginning with normal activities and progressing to the
stabilization phase after force deployment and possible hostilities. Its findings support the
assertion of the oft-quoted opening passage that the long-term achievement of a nation's
security objectives--even for SSCs--depends primarily on the capabilities and sacrifices of its
ground forces.
The U.S. Commission on National Security--21st Century has produced a "strategic
spectrum" that displays the progress of a crisis that escalates to hostilities. They disaggregate
the process into phases that move from Peace to Crisis to Conflict to Post-Conflict and then
return to Peace. 4 This depiction of the life cycle of a crisis can be misleading, however, if it is
interpreted to mean that the end state is just a return to the status quo, or that all crises
inevitably lead to conflict. A more representative construct for analysis of the missions and
capabilities required from contemporary military forces in SSCs is to define the operational
phases by the primary functions being performed. During periods of normalcy, the
geographic combatant commander, known colloquially as the Commander-in-Chief (CINC),
will use his assets to shape his strategic environment primarily through engagement.
However, once a crisis begins that threatens to escalate to armed conflict, additional military
forces are usually deployed to enhance deterrence through a show of force. (If the crisis is
more humanitarian in nature, forces may be built up to facilitate possible response.)
Hostilities may or may not occur, but the aftermath of any crisis will normally require
significant military involvement to stabilize the situation and maintain policy gains. This last
phase can take a very long time, but without it the conditions that led to the crisis in the first
place will usually return. Currently CINCs coordinate their peacetime activities with Theater
3
Engagement Plans, and respond to crises with contingency plans and Crisis Action Planning
that lead to the operations plans executed in a conflict. Historically, however, because of an
operational focus concerned primarily with the conflict phase of SSCs, American military
forces have not done as well with post-hostility planning and execution.
While the Clinton administration showed a preference to rely on cruise missiles and
air strikes in the hostility phase of SSCs, the Army was still the predominant service in the
engagement, enhanced deterrence, and stabilization phases. The Army's involvement in
stabilization phase operations has been particularly demanding and has pushed the service to
perform numerous unwanted nation-building tasks. As the demands have grown for ground
forces in overlapping post-hostility or post-crisis operations, they have highlighted some
shortfalls in Army attitudes, resourcing, and force structure that will require changes if the
service is going to be able to meet its considerable similar responsibilities for the future. The
key finding of this study for the U.S. Army is that it must be trained and structured to
execute some degree of nation-building during the stabilization phase of SSCs. The character
and capabilities of its soldiers, combined with persistent security requirements and the
inadequacies of civilian organizations, insure that the Army will not be able to avoid such
missions in a future that will be filled with contingencies requiring its unique ability to
protect an area while restoring it to civilization.
Operational Phases and Service Roles.
Almost all SSCs are joint operations, though some missions are tailored primarily for
one component. Maritime operations are carried out mainly by the Navy, and "no fly" zones
are enforced by air forces. During the last 7 years, cruise missiles or aircraft alone carried out
strike missions in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq, Sudan, and Yugoslavia. But the Army had an
4
important role in the vast majority of the recorded contingencies, especially in peacekeeping
or show-of-force missions and cases of domestic support or humanitarian assistance, and
usually bore the brunt of major operational requirements. 5
While the SSCs discussed in this monograph vary greatly in kind and scope, general
patterns can be derived for missions, capabilities, and service employment in different phases
of the operational life cycle in the theater. Before a crisis occurs, a CINC's military forces
will be involved in normal shaping missions. Shaping is accomplished through deterrence
and engagement, and the current National Security Strategy places heavy emphasis on the
latter.6 The Joint Strategic Planning System (JSPS) requires CINCs to develop Theater
Engagement Plans (TEPs) to link regional activities with national strategic objectives.
Essential mission categories addressed in the TEP include operations, combined exercises,
security assistance, combined training and education, military contacts, humanitarian
assistance, and monitoring treaty obligations. 7 A significant shortcoming in the uniformity of
the CINCs' abilities to shape their theaters effectively with the TEPs is that they are just
individually reviewed rather than integrated or assessed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff (CJCS). Priorities among plans are not established and forces are not allocated
accordingly, meaning that a CINC's engagement capabilities are largely a function of his
forces on hand, not his requirements. 8 The Army provides over 60 percent of America's
forces committed to engagement through its 150,000 forward stationed and deployed
forces. 9 While much of this activity falls into the classification of stability operations or
support operations, offensive and defensive capabilities are exercised through operations and
exercises that also enhance deterrence.
This warfighting capability becomes even more important once a crisis erupts,
providing CINCs with a key ingredient in the flexible deterrent options they develop for
their theaters. These usually combine diplomatic, economic, and military elements tailored to
5
stop or control the escalation of a crisis. They may be as simple as enhancements for existing
forces, such as increasing the alert posture or manning levels for units already in place.
Sometimes theater assets will have to be augmented with new projected forces. 10
Normally some show of military force is made to intimidate potential aggressors and
show U.S. interest and resolve. Effective military deterrence has three requirements: the
development of objectives intended to be accomplished or defended by force, the
acquisition and deployment of capabilities to back up that intent, and the communication of
that intent to a potential threat.11 A primary rationale for maintaining a conventional force
capable of fighting two major theater wars (MTW) is to ensure that no matter what other
military operation America is involved in, there is still roughly an MTW worth of capability
in reserve waiting to deal with a threat that tries to catch the nation off guard. One of the
paradoxes of conventional deterrence is that the stronger U.S. military forces are, the less
likely we are to have to use them. As force levels and capabilities decrease, risks of a
challenge to them increase. Another paradox of deterrence also makes maintaining such
strong forces difficult in times of peace or budgetary constraints: while it is easy to tell when
deterrence fails, such as with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, it is more problematic to prove that
it is working.
Army units are the preferred forces to form the core of the joint force required for
the type of enhanced conventional deterrence that can compel an aggressor to back down
and defuse a crisis. Not only do Army forces possess significant capability, the deployment
of heavy units also is the strongest possible signal of American intent. The effort that goes
into their movement and relative permanence of their placement shows the maximum
national commitment to defend U.S. interests. Lighter Army units also clearly signal
6
commitment intent and usually serve as the spearhead for American ground involvement in
any crisis.
The effectiveness of the Army's deterrent is based on its proven and perceived ability
to exercise offensive and defensive operations. In 1988, President Reagan deployed elements
of the 7th Infantry and 82d Airborne Divisions to Honduras to counter Nicaraguan
incursions. Though labeled a "joint training exercise," the operation featured fully armed
troops and the Sandinistas withdrew. 12 They no doubt remembered the performance of
similar American forces in Operation URGENT FURY in Grenada. Similarly, the deterrent
value of the deployment of elements of the 24th Mechanized Infantry Division back to
Kuwait in 1994 for Operation VIGILANT WARRIOR was enhanced by Iraqi memories of
DESERT STORM, and they quickly withdrew from threatening positions along the Kuwaiti
border. Further deployments of ground forces to Kuwait in 1996 and 1998 succeeded in
modifying Iraqi behavior again, and have had an obvious dampening effect on overt
aggressive behavior over time. 13 These shows of force had the desired impact. No aggressor
since the Vietnam War has risked attacking where deployed American ground forces blocked
the way.
The effectiveness of this ground deterrence, plus a predilection to rely on airpower to
reduce the risk of friendly casualties, has reduced the role of the Army in combat during the
last decade in relation to the other services. However, the Army's Wartime Executive Agency
Requirements delineated in Department of Defense (DoD) Directives, CINC operation
plans (Oplans), Inter-Service Support Agreements, and Title X, U.S. Code insure that it will
remain heavily involved at least in support of any combat operation. Its responsibilities for
all services in a theater cover more than 30 different functions including Class I and III
support; overland petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POL) distribution; prisoners of war
(POWs) and detainees; civil affairs; graves registration; and nuclear, biological, and chemical
7
(NBC) protection and decontamination. In addition, Army agencies must provide supply
support for United Nations (U.N.) peacekeeping forces if they are deployed, as well as all
inland logistical support for the Marines. 14
However, the Army makes perhaps its greatest contribution towards accomplishing
national policy objectives in the stabilization phase of SSCs after most air and naval forces
have gone home. During the Clinton administration, the Army was the primary tool to
achieve any lasting impact from major military deployments. The record shows that when
ground troops leave, as in Haiti or Somalia, the situation soon reverts to the conditions that
sparked the crisis in the first place. Only when they remain behind, as in Bosnia or Kosovo,
is any stability or meaningful change possible.
While Army forces help keep the peace through the deterrent effect of their offensive
and defensive abilities, the primary roles they perform in this final phase are in support
operations and stability operations. And as time goes on, the need for combat capabilities
continues to decline, while requirements for rebuilding infrastructure and restoring normal
life increase. Generally the Army has planned poorly for the stabilization phase after crisis
resolution, and is not properly resourced or structured to handle the growing number of
such overlapping commitments accruing to it. This monograph addresses these issues in
more detail later. Neither budgets nor forces have been designed to take into account the
sober fact that during the last decade any major deployment of military force to resolve a
crisis in a theater has ended by creating new long-term force requirements there to keep the
situation stabilized and to maintain progress towards American foreign policy goals.
Figures 2, 3, and 4 graphically depict the general course and greatest emphasis in the
participation of the various service components in resolving a crisis during the last decade.
Figure 2 illustrates the employment of Army forces. They are the most heavily involved of
8
9
Time
Level of
Deployment/use
Enhanced
Deterrence
Stabilization
Occurs with or
without hostilities
Hostility
Does not always
occur
Figure 2. Pattern for Landpower in SSCs in the 1990s.
Engagement
And Shaping
any service in engagement activities. As the crisis heats up, they are also the preferred
instrument to enhance deterrence, as long as land areas are available for their deployment.
Force levels build up in preparation for possible hostilities, and even if not engaged in them
the Army has the extensive support responsibilities listed above. Then the service picks up
almost all the missions in the final stabilization phase of the SSC, which can take a very long
time. The Korean example, where an American division is still in place 50 years after the
crisis, might be a portent of things to come in the Balkans. Army peacekeepers have been in
Egypt as part of Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) Sinai for 18 years, and in
Honduras as part of Joint Task Force (JTF) Bravo for 16 years. Additionally, the longer that
hostilities go on with the destructive power of modern weapons, the more extensive
rebuilding and clean-up efforts will be.
Figure 3 generally depicts the mission flow of Navy and Marine forces. They are also
heavily engaged in shaping activities, especially for CINCs with wide ocean expanses such as
CINCPAC. Naval battle groups are an important instrument for flexible deterrent options
such as a show of force or enforcement of a blockade in support of sanctions, and the
Marines from an Amphibious Readiness Group may provide important landpower
reinforcements to affect a crisis. Sealift gets Army forces to the theater, especially heavy
units, though there are limited organic U.S. Navy assets for these missions. Naval aircraft
and cruise missiles were primary tools of the Clinton administration for strikes and combat
operations, a trend that will probably continue with future administrations intent on
minimizing casualties in crisis resolution, especially when public support for the commitment
of American military power is weak or fragile. However, most Navy and Marine forces
remain distant or leave once the crisis is resolved, unless there are some lingering sanctions
to be enforced at sea, or a Marine force is left behind as a precaution.
As for airpower, Eliot Cohen has described it as "an unusually seductive form of
10
11
Time
Level of
Deployment/Use
Enhanced
Deterrence
Stabilization
Occurs with or without
hostilities
Hostility
Does not always
occur
Figure 3. Pattern for Seapower in SSCs in the 1990s
Engagement
And Shaping
military strength because, like modern courtship, it appears to offer the pleasure of
gratification without the burdens of commitment." 15 During the last decade the main role for
air forces in conventional SSCs has been for airlift and combat strikes. (See Figure 4.) They
are involved only marginally in engagement, and while one may argue that strategic bombers
in Kansas add to conventional deterrence because of their range and power, they do not
have the ability to send a strong signal of intent until they are actually used. A show of force
with airpower almost always involves combat actions that escalate a crisis into a phase of
hostilities. While land forces can be deployed for a long-term presence along borders and
naval forces off coasts, the utility for air forces in the enhanced deterrence phase of an SSC
has been more limited. Flyovers of another nation can be viewed as a violation of
sovereignty or act of war, might not be seen, and are ephemeral. The commitment that
Cohen mentioned provides the signal for national intent that is such a key ingredient for
effective deterrence. The U.S. Air Force (USAF) development of Aerospace Expeditionary
Forces might make airpower a better conventional deterrent tool, but that remains to be
seen. 16 And when the shooting stops, most air combat forces usually go home. However,
airlift requirements, which are also critical to build up Army forces for deterrence and
hostilities, as well as to execute most humanitarian relief missions and noncombatant
evacuations, remain important in the stabilization phase.
Air combat forces do retain a significant role in the stabilization phase for the
enforcement of no-fly zones. These come infrequently and generally do not require a large
number of aircraft, but can last for a long time and are expensive. Northern Watch and
Southern Watch against Iraq have gone on for more than 9 years, becoming quite a drain on
USAF resources and personnel. This kind of stabilization is less entangling for the nation,
but also much less effective than using ground forces. Despite retaliatory air attacks that the
Iraqis claim have killed or wounded over a thousand people since December 1998, there is
12
13
Time
Level of
Deployment/Use
Enhanced
Deterrence
Stabilization
Occurs with or
without hostilities
Hostility
Does not always
occur
Figure 4. Pattern for Airpower in SSCs in the 1990s
Engagement
And Shaping
If no-fly
zone
little evidence that American and British air patrols have shielded southern Iraqis from
persecution. 17 Their efforts have been more successful in the north, but Kurds living in "a
Middle East version of Brigadoon" know that the future remains uncertain. 18 Also, air forces
can not rebuild infrastructure or restore law and order as ground forces do. Like naval
forces, however, they can be very useful in maintaining sanctions.
The importance of the Army role in recent peace operations can be deduced from an
examination of DoD expenditures on such missions. (See Figure 5.) From 1994 to 1998, the
Army paid 53 percent of the department's incremental costs for such operations, far more
than any other service. Second was the Air Force, averaging about 35 percent. 19
Some Historical Examples.
Recent history provides a number of useful examples to illustrate these trends in the
employment of American military forces in SSCs. They also highlight many of the special
difficulties that appear in the stabilization phase of such operations.
Panama. Operations in Panama leading to the overthrow of the Noriega regime
arguably provide the best warfighting model for the employment of American military forces
in a crisis that escalates into a full conflict, at least through the hostility phase. 20 The crisis
period was exceptionally long, beginning with public revelations about General Manuel
Noriega's nefarious activities in June 1987 and culminating with the execution of Operation
JUST CAUSE in December 1989. Planning for military intervention began as early as
February 1988. 21 When Noriega annulled the election of May 1989, sent his paramilitary
hugs to assault opposition candidates, and increased his harassment of Americans, the
United States executed Operation NIMROD DANCER as a show of force primarily with
landpower. Army units deployed included a brigade headquarters, a light infantry
14
15
battalion, a mechanized infantry battalion, and a battery of field artillery. They were
augmented with a company of Marines. The U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) used
these additional forces to conduct exercises designed to show further American resolve and
hopefully to force Noriega to modify his behavior. When this failed to occur, the National
Command Authority directed the execution of Operation JUST CAUSE. A textbook
example of the quality of the new armed forces and doctrine developed in the United States,
it encompassed the simultaneous assault of 27 targets at night. Though all service
components participated, the Army furnished 79 percent of the forces. 22
Due to a focus on conducting a decisive operation and not the complete campaign,
the aftermath of this SSC did not go as smoothly, however. Planning for the stabilization
phase, Operation PROMOTE LIBERTY, was far from complete when hostilities began.
Missions and responsibilities were vague, and planners failed to adequately appreciate the
effects of combat operations and overthrowing the regime. 23 Though guidance from
SOUTHCOM on post-hostility missions was clear, tactically oriented planners at the 18th
Airborne Corps in charge of JTF South gave it short shrift. For instance, the planners
assigned the lone military police (MP) battalion the responsibility for running a detention
facility, conducting all convoy security, and providing security of key facilities, as well as for
being prepared to restore law and order.24 With the elimination of the Panamanian Defense
Force, looting and vandalism spread throughout the country. Chaos reigned as American
forces scrambled to restore some semblance of order.25 MPs trained in law and order
missions did not perform well in unfamiliar combat operations, and were inadequate in
numbers to deal with the problems they faced in the aftermath. 26 They also could not handle
all the POWs and refugees for which they were now responsible. There were not enough
civil affairs personnel or engineers for the rebuilding effort, either, and deficiencies were
16
exacerbated by slow and disorganized Reserve call-ups relying on volunteers. Politicalmilitary interagency cooperation was also poor, as many agencies were excluded from DoD
planning and the embassy was severely understaffed. 27
Senior commanders admitted afterwards that they had done poorly in planning for
the stabilization phase and hoped the Army would remedy that situation in the future.28 The
U.S. Military Support Group that had been activated in January 1990 to support the growth
of independent Panamanian institutions was finally deactivated exactly 1 year later in a much
more stable country, though whether it or Panamanian leaders deserved most credit for
progress was unclear to observers. 29 American ground forces remained in the country until
late 1999, when they were withdrawn in accordance with treaty agreements.
Somalia. This SSC illustrates the importance for peacekeepers also to be capable of
warfighting, and that task forces configured primarily for humanitarian missions might not
be able simultaneously to conduct effective peace enforcement. The two basic problems
involved in relieving the widespread suffering in Somalia were delivering adequate food,
water, and medicine throughout that troubled nation while insuring supplies were not stolen
by bandits, clans, or warring factions. 30 The Army's unique transportation capabilities with
trucks and helicopters insure it will always be critical in delivering relief to isolated or
undeveloped regions of the world, and its ability to provide ground security for any SSC is
the most important ingredient for achieving success.
Operation PROVIDE RELIEF from August to December 1992 consisted primarily
of airlifts of supplies, but the deteriorating security situation caused the United Nations to
expand its mandate to include restoring order. The nucleus for the JTF in Operation
RESTORE HOPE that resulted was a Marine Expeditionary Force, but Army organizations
comprised 44 percent of the total force deployed in the theater, including much of the 10th
17
Mountain Division and many support units. After 5 months the first peacekeeping operation
directed by the U.N. under the auspices of Chapter VII of its charter replaced the initial
force. While the actual combat power of the new force was reduced, its mission was actually
expanded to include disarming Somali clans. Most of the 4,500 Americans serving in the
U.N. operation were Army support personnel, but the 10th Mountain Division provided
over a thousand combat soldiers for a Quick Reaction Force. This is a case where the
Marines also kept a marine expeditionary unit (MEU) offshore. The Army eventually
reinforced its contingent with Task Force Ranger as well. There was a poor transition from
one force to another, and a lack of appreciation for the increasing security problems and
capabilities of the armed threats in the country. One problem with short rotations is the loss
of institutional knowledge that results. The failure to properly coordinate humanitarian,
military, and diplomatic requirements, and the jumble of nation-building tasks added by the
newest U.N. mandate, meant that determinants of mission success were vague at best.
Campaign planning is very difficult without a clear end state. There were critical shortfalls in
communications units in a complex multinational environment, intelligence personnel and
procedures, and liaison between military and civilian agencies. 31
Resistance to nation-building contributed to "mission creep" as those tasks were
forced upon unprepared American units or fell to them by default. Forces were not
structured or resourced to accomplish all their required missions, and this culminated in the
debacle in Mogadishu in October 1993. President Clinton withdrew all American forces 5
months later, and, without a U.S. ground presence, the relief effort in Somalia foundered.
The country reverted into "a madhouse of violence and corruption" with a wretched
population. Exhausted by a decade of debilitating strife, only recently have the Somalis
responded to fresh initiatives from their neighbor, Djibouti, and begun to reestablish a
functioning state.32 From 1992-95 the United States spent more than two billion dollars for
18
operations in Somalia, and about three-quarters of that was expended through DoD. These
costs included considerable logistics support for U.N. forces and the rebuilding of much of
the nation's basic infrastructure, missions falling primarily under Army purview. 33
Haiti. Like Panama, this was another SSC in response to a long-festering crisis. It
began with the military overthrow of President Jean-Bertrande Aristide by Lieutenant
General Raoul Cedras in September 1991. The JCS sent the first alert order to
CINCUSACOM to begin planning for contingency operations in Haiti on April 1, 1993.
Because it was an island nation and the Dominican Republic would not allow American
military forces to deploy on its territory, Coast Guard and Navy vessels provided enhanced
deterrence by intercepting refugees, enforcing sanctions, and steaming off the shores as
shows of force. Tens of thousands of Haitian refugees fleeing their impoverished island
taxed humanitarian relief agencies and facilities throughout the Caribbean. Planning for
active intervention intensified in October after armed protesters in Port Au Prince turned
away a ship loaded with U.N. peacekeepers. During the next year, international pressure on
the military leaders of Haiti increased, and was intensified even further by obvious American
preparations for an invasion. The decision of the Haitian government in September 1994 to
return President Aristide to power was to a large extent because they knew Army helicopters
and 10th Mountain Division soldiers aboard the USS Eisenhower, along with elements of the
82nd Airborne Division deployed from Fort Bragg, were heading for Haiti. 34 In fact,
General Cedras did not begin to negotiate seriously with the American diplomatic delegation
until he had confirmed that the 82nd Airborne detachment was in the air. The overwhelming
force deployed in the initial occupation and that force's professional and disciplined conduct
and appearance in continuing operations did much to deter and control the actions of
potential troublemakers. 35
19
The long lead-time between the beginning of the crisis and actual military
intervention combined with lessons learned from operations like those in Panama and
Somalia greatly facilitated planning for Operation UPHOLD DEMOCRACY. 36 The U.S.
Atlantic Command (USACOM) prepared Oplans for both forced and unopposed entry,
while DoD conducted extensive interagency coordination. 37 Its Haiti Planning Group, with
the assistance of other government agencies, prepared a detailed "Interagency Checklist for
Restoration of Essential Services." The lead agency for all major functional areas was the
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), with DoD support, mostly from
Army units, in reestablishing public administration, conducting elections, restoring
information services, assisting the Department of Justice with setting up and training a police
force, disaster preparedness and response, running airports, and caring for refugees. Military
units did have primary responsibility for security measures such as explosive ordnance
disposal (EOD), protecting foreign residents, and demobilizing paramilitary groups. Again,
these were mostly Army functions, and the service provided 96 percent of deployed military
forces. 38
These plans and their execution were obviously affected by the desire of military
leaders to avoid getting involved with "nation-building" missions such as those that had led
to so much grief in Somalia. Army lawyers wrestled with interpreting humanitarian requests
for reconstruction to classify them as mission related and allowed versus nation-building and
prohibited.39 Medical units were told to focus on supporting the JTF and not humanitarian
assistance, as they were cautioned not to replace the medical facilities of the host nation. 40
This stand -off approach had its most regrettable result on September 20, 1994, when
American forces stood by and watched Haitian police kill two demonstrators. The next day
American officials expanded the rules of engagement to allow more military involvement in
restoring and maintaining law and order.41
20
Similar expansion of Army roles and missions happened in most other areas of the
restoration efforts.42 The attorneys eventually rationalized that any action that made
Americans look good would lessen security risks, and approved more projects. 43 Other
governmental agencies were slow to arrive or build up resources, so the military picked up
the slack. Generally, the other departments had not done the detailed planning that DoD
had, and often wanted more support than DoD expected to provide. 44 A typical example
was when the Ambassador to Haiti asked for military advisers to help new government
ministries get established until efforts from USAID and the State Department could be
established. The result was a ministerial advisor team from the 358th Civil Affairs (CA)
Brigade, "the first large scale implementation of a civil administration effort since World War
II." 45 The scope and pace of CA missions increased so rapidly that they threatened to get out
of control, and raised fears that such actions would only heighten Haitian expectations that
U.S. forces could fix all the nation's problems, and thus set the people up for great
disappointment later.46
These expanded missions caused many other problems. Engineer planning,
equipment, and personnel were inadequate for their required civil affairs and reconstruction
projects. Soldiers had to develop new policies and procedures to help set up internal security
forces and expend funds. This often required "working around" Title 10, U.S. Code,
restrictions. They assumed expanded roles in maintaining law and order, including manning
and operating detention facilities and developing new crowd control techniques. Items like
latrines and police uniforms were in short supply. Doctrine and personnel were not available
to establish proper liaison with the myriad civilian organizations working in the country. As
in previous SSCs, intelligence assets were severely taxed, and the force in Haiti had to rely
heavily on theater and national intelligence assets to make up for deficiencies.47
21
However, the military in general, and the Army in particular, has received much
praise for its performance in Haiti. Nonetheless, since the last American troops left the
island in April 1996, the situation there has deteriorated to conditions approaching those
early in the 1990s. Without long-term military involvement, most U.S. policy goals have been
frustrated. The civilian agencies that replaced military forces have not had the same
resources available, and persistent flaws in the Haitian economy, judicial system, and political
leadership have obstructed reform. American officials have decried the results of recent
elections, and admitted the failure of their policies. Even the Secretary General of the U.N.
has recommended against renewing the current mission there.48 Between 1992 and 1995, the
United States spent over 1.6 billion dollars for operations in Haiti. Over $950 million of that
was expended through DoD, and mostly for Army operations, to include the administration
of large refugee camps. 49
The Balkans. The combat actions in the Balkans reflect the trend to use aircraft and
cruise missiles for hostilities, though the threat of the Croat Army had important influence
on the negotiations that led to the Dayton Accords for Bosnia, just as the growing potential
for a NATO ground campaign helped resolve the situation in Kosovo. The deployment of a
relatively small ground contingent, including 350 American soldiers, in the U.N. Preventive
Deployment Force in Macedonia had significant impact both for peacekeeping there and as
a show of force to deter potentially aggressive neighbors, preventing any "conflict
spillover."50 The U.S. Army has picked up its usual predominant load of stabilization phase
tasks requiring more than 10,000 troops in Bosnia and Kosovo, and seems resigned to a
long-term commitment in the region. Rotational schedules have been prepared through
2005, and there are discussions in Washington about establishing a "permanent presence"
there. 51
Current American operations in the Balkans reveal how force and mission
22
requirements change during the stabilization phase. Eighteen months after the signing of the
agreement between NATO and the Yugoslav Army over Kosovo, U.S. Army troops there
are still engaged in "peacekeeping with an iron fist." They are primarily focused on
establishing a safe and secure environment under the rule of law, with patrols backed by
armored vehicles and detention centers to control troublemakers. The U.N.-NATO justice
system has been heavily criticized, and a Judge Advocate General Legal Assessment Team
recently found the U.N. mission in Kosovo so severely short of facilities and personnel to
establish the rule of law that it recommended teams of 15 Army Reserve Component (RC)
lawyers be rotated through the country to reinforce the U.N. effort.52
Efforts in Bosnia are more advanced, and the environment more secure and peaceful.
Deployed Army task forces have become lighter with every rotation, and have moved from
immediate security concerns towards enhancing long-term stability. By late 1997 it became
apparent to stabilization forces (SFOR) that a large disparity existed between the ability of
military forces to achieve their initially assigned tasks of the General Framework Agreement
for Peace (GFAP) and that of their less-capable civilian counterparts to meet their own
implementation requirements. SFOR realized it could not disengage with such a large
"GFAP Gap" remaining, and expanded its mission to "assist international organizations to
set the conditions for civilian implementation of the GFAP in order to transition the area of
operations to a stable environment." U.S. military leaders on the scene recognized they were
moving into the area of nation-building, but saw no alternative if SFOR was ever going to be
able to withdraw or significantly reduce its commitment without risking the peace. 53
As the nature of the stability operations and support operations in Bosnia evolved, so
did the requirements of the peacekeeping force. It needed fewer combat troops and more
engineers, military police, and civil affairs personnel. Intelligence requirements changed and
23
expanded. After-action reports highlighted many shortfalls in the current force structure and
peacekeeping policies, many of them common to previous SSCs. Army lawyers again proved
adept at "thinking outside traditional fiscal rules and applications" to support operational
requirements. 54 The roles of military policemen expanded to include performing as
maneuver battalion task forces and working with international law enforcement agencies.55
Difficulties with tactical MPs trying to perform law and order missions reappeared.56
There were problems with shortages and recall procedures for RC engineer, military
intelligence, and civil affairs augmentation. 57 The massive engineering requirements for
Operations JOINT ENDEAVOR and JOINT GUARD especially highlighted branch
deficiencies with command and control, construction unit allocations, and bridging.58 A
split-based logistics system trying to meet requirements in the Balkans and back in the
Central Region of Europe required considerable augmentation and still strained combat
support/combat service support (CS/CSS) assets considerably. 59 Liaison officers were in
great demand, not just as Joint Commission Observers with the Entity Armed Forces, but
also to coordinate with the myriad non-governmental organizations and other agencies. 60
There were shortages of linguists throughout the theater, which especially exacerbated
problems with intelligence. Military intelligence (MI) doctrine was completely inadequate for
supporting peace operations, and understaffed intelligence units had to adapt as best they
could for the complex "multi-service, multi-agency, and multi-national" situation further
complicated by a host of treaty requirements. 61
A Defense Science Board study concluded that Balkan operations revealed many
shortcomings in psychological operations (PSYOPS) as well, especially in planning and
resources to support engagement and stabilization phase activities for all the geographic
CINCs. 62 Even with all these problems, Army units in Bosnia have continued to compile a
24
superlative record of accomplishments. However, the "GFAP Gap" remains, with recurring
U.N. problems coordinating and directing civilian agencies while recent elections were
dominated by continuing political divisiveness. 63
Stabilization Shortfalls.
By the time Germany surrendered in May 1945, Allied planning for the post-conflict
phase of operations in that nation had been ongoing for 2 years. All staff sections at SHAEF
and Army Group headquarters invested considerable resources in developing what became
Operation ECLIPSE. The plan correctly predicted most of the tasks required of the units
occupying the defeated country. Within 3 months they had disarmed and demobilized
German armed forces, cared for and repatriated four million POWs and refugees, restored
basic services to many devastated cities, discovered and quashed a potential revolt, created
working local governments, and reestablished police and the courts. 64 In contrast, Lieutenant
General John Yeosock, commander of Third Army in Operation DESERT STORM, could
get no useful staff support to assess and plan for post-conflict issues like hospital beds,
prisoners, and refugees, complaining later that he was handed a "dripping bag of manure"
that no one else wanted to deal with. 65 Neither the Army nor DoD had an adequate plan for
post-war operations to rebuild Kuwait, and civilian agencies were even more unprepared.
The situation was only salvaged by the adept improvisations of Army engineers and civil
affairs personnel, and the dedicated efforts of Kuwaiti volunteers and the Saudi Arabian
government. 66
Some of the deficiencies in post-war planning for Desert Storm can be attributed to
the fact that Third Army was the first American field army in combat since the Korean War.
Stabilization phase planning historically has been a function of headquarters at echelons
25
above corps, and continuing problems with more recent operations are at least partly
attributable to the generally small scale of American interventions. It also is a result of the
fact that for most of the 20th century, U.S. Army leaders and planners have focused almost
exclusively on winning major wars, not keeping the peace. The disappointing experience in
Vietnam shaped and reinforced institutional attitudes that nation-building missions are to be
avoided, a predilection reinforced by legal constraints. Joint Publication 1-02, the DOD
Dictionary, does not even mention the term, instead offering this more limited definition of
"nation assistance":
Civil and/or military assistance rendered to a nation by foreign forces within that nation's
territory during peacetime, crises, or emergencies, or war based on agreements mutually
concluded between nations. Nation assistance programs include, but are not limited to,
security assistance, foreign internal defense, other US Code Title X (DOD) programs, and
activities performed on a reimbursable basis by Federal agencies or international
organizations. 67
Semantics aside, the Army must be better prepared to plan and execute a broad range
of stabilization phase tasks for the long term. Other regional actors rarely understand
American military reluctance to engage in such missions. Africans viewed the American
multi-million dollar effort to aid Rwanda as grudging and token because the commander
insisted his mission was going to be limited and short in duration. Though U.S. European
Command (USEUCOM) viewed the completed operation as a model of efficiency, Africans
were still complaining about unpaid bills a year later, and the experience reinforced their
perceptions that America was a fickle and disinterested partner in their region. 68
Some CINCs have begun placing special emphasis on the development and execution
of stabilization phase tasks, though their efforts are still in the early stages. A recent
ARCENT exercise aimed to identify the key mission requirements for "post-decisive"
26
operations in its theater. It determined that Army forces would initially have to stabilize the
country with actions like preventing violence, restoring the power system, repairing the
transportation infrastructure, and facilitating the ability of local authorities and
nongovernment organizations/international organizations (NGOs/IOs) to provide water,
food, and medical support. Another important mission will involve the internment and
resettlement of enemy POWs and displaced civilians. Information operations will include
PSYOPS against remaining hostile elements as well as public information to the civilian
populace. Army personnel will take the lead in clearing mines and unexploded ordnance that
hinder mission accomplishment, and in securing weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
production and delivery sites. While providing security for the region from outside threats,
the Army will also have to facilitate the organization of a regime to replace the one it helped
destroy. This will necessitate reshaping a new local military force and assisting the new
regime to reenter the international arena. Before redeploying along with allied contingents,
Army forces will have to help reconstitute them while moving to transfer responsibility for
the region back to IOs. 69
Improving Army performance in the stabilization phase of SSCs will require more
than just better planning and education, however. Recent operations have highlighted a
number of organizational deficiencies. SSCs strain force structure in a number of special
ways. Traditional counts of units deployed in the theater underestimate the total personnel
involved in the operation. The number of CS/CSS personnel supporting the mission in
Somalia outnumbered soldiers actually serving in the theater by up to four times or more.
(See Figure 6.) Cross leveling of personnel to fill units to wartime strength or for unique
requirements can have a considerable ripple effect on readiness. The ten companies of MPs
that deployed to Somalia required augmentation from 62 different units. 70 SSCs are
particularly hard on certain active duty "high demand/low density" units in the
27
28
quartermaster and transportation branches, such as general supply companies and water
purification units. Somalia required all of the Army's active air movement control teams and
three quarters of the active petroleum supply companies. 71 The Army has already acted to
increase its supply of active and reserve Civil Affairs personnel to meet shortages revealed by
recent deployments, but that strain will not be reduced until FY 2003. 72 The extension of the
Bosnia mission has highlighted additional inadequacies in the total available number of a
variety of other CS/CSS units that are distributed between active and reserve components. 73
Excessive deployments for SSCs have a negative effect on retention of active soldiers,
but are having even more significant impact on Reserve and National Guard units not
accustomed to such use. Considerable portions of the Army's CS and CSS are currently in
the Reserve Component, including 66 percent of the CS and 72 percent of the CSS in
Echelons above Division units that are often so critical for stabilization phase tasks in
SSCs. 74 When General Creighton Abrams moved more of the Army's CS/CSS structure out
of the active component, at least partly to ensure the president would not be able to deploy
forces to another Vietnam without obtaining Congressional support for mobilization, the
Army Chief of Staff did not foresee the future course or tempo of service missions. 75 In
Fiscal Year 1986, Reserve Components contributed 900,000 man-days of service; by Fiscal
Year 1999 that figure had skyrocketed to 12.5 million man-days. Increased deployments also
require more training time and are causing more problems with concerned employers.
Additionally, using reserve forces for peacekeeping missions significantly raises Army costs
for personnel, transportation, and training, while heightening awareness of key military
occupational specialty (MOS) shortages in some reserve organizations. 76 This pace of
deployments threatens to change the traditional part-time nature of reserve duty. By the time
29
soldiers from the 49th Division returned from Bosnia, some of them had served more than
380 days of active duty within 2 years. Twenty-six reportedly filed labor complaints before
deploying to keep from losing their civilian jobs. 77 There has been plenty of media coverage
about the problems faced by guardsmen and reservists sent overseas on unexpectedly long
or repetitive deployments, and the situation is especially acute for those high demand/low
density CS/CSS units mentioned above. 78
SSC requirements also have a major potential impact on the Army's ability to fight
two MTWs. The CBO has noted that the Service's rather ad hoc approach to forming task
forces for peace operations would significantly detract from its ability to garner enough
forces for two MTWs. 79 USEUCOM has already developed a Balkan Disengagement Plan to
redeploy its units to other major contingencies that might arise, but American political
leadership might not be willing to risk losing gains in the region that such an abandonment
might bring.80 Analyses of the Army's ability to conduct two nearly simultaneous MTWs
have already revealed many force shortfalls for that particular scenario. The Army National
Guard (ARNG) Division Redesign Study recommended the conversion of up to 12 ARNG
combat brigades into CS/CSS units to help make up for a shortfall of 124,800 personnel in
those specialties identified by Total Army Analysis 2003 in order to carry out the national
military strategy. Initial units for conversion have been designated, but the whole process, if
carried out to its full course, will not be completed until FY 2009 and does not currently
address all the shortcomings that have been mentioned in SSC after-action reports. 81
Possible Solutions for Stabilization Shortfalls.
A number of possible structural solutions are available to the Army to improve its
performance in SSCs, especially for the stability operations and support operations required
30
in the last phase. These range from internal reorganizations to relying more on civilian
agencies.
Forming Specialized Peacekeeping Units. Some commentators have recommended that the
Army establish constabulary units focused exclusively on peacekeeping duties. While this has
certain training and organizational efficiencies, it is a bad idea for a number of reasons. At
the beginning of the stabilization phase, strong warfighting skills are essential, and no
progress is possible without peace and security. The overall conventional deterrent value of
today's relatively small Army will be significantly reduced if some units are perceived as
having more limited capability for offensive and defensive operations, unless these
constabulary units are an addition to the existing force structure. They will also be of only
marginal utility in meeting the requirements of the current national military strategy with
acceptable risk. Whether created as new organizations or from modifications of existing
ones, these specialized units would probably be inadequate to meet future demands for their
skills, anyway, since Center for Army Analysis (CAA) projections based on data from the last
decade predict the United States will face 25 to 30 ongoing SSCs every month. 82 One
alternative to deal with this approach would be to structure Reserve and National Guard
units to perform stabilization phase functions. After active combat units have had time to
provide a secure environment, deployment of such specialized RC/NG forces might be
appropriate. Their performance in the Balkans has drawn rave reviews from many civilian
administrators who like the different attitudes those units bring to stabilization phase
operations. But there would need to be many of these units to prevent excessive
deployments, and these same attitudes that please civilian observers will draw the Army even
more into nation-building tasks.
Creating More Multi-Purpose Units. This option makes more sense, considering the
realities the Army will face. General Eric Shinseki's transformation initiatives are very
31
relevant for this solution. The new medium brigades will retain some armored punch with
more infantry. They will have augmented intelligence capabilities. They will be more mobile
and versatile. The Army would need to invest in multi-purpose technologies, such as
platforms equally suitable for mounting lethal weaponry for combat or carrying relief
supplies for humanitarian missions. Another approach might be to employ combat engineers
with armored personnel carriers for peacekeeping, relying on their secondary mission as
infantry while retaining their building skills, or to use military policemen equipped with
armored security vehicles (ASVs). This solution will require more than just new
organizations or technology, however. There will have to be a recognition and acceptance
throughout the Army that SSCs are the most likely missions to be performed, and that they
require a different mindset and training than fighting a major war. Army schools at all levels
will have to prepare soldiers better to meet this challenge, and units will have to adjust
METLs accordingly.
Increase Active Component CS/CSS Force Structure. A common theme in mission afteraction reports, observations from civilian administrators, and exercise analyses is that the
Army has serious shortfalls in providing the required CS/CSS support for the operational
stabilization phase. Some of these shortfalls are the result of having theater-level elements in
the reserve component that might be a late follow-on in a major war but are needed much
more quickly in an SSC. This is the case with some engineer organizations. Some deficiencies
are the result of elements that are almost exclusively in the reserves and have just become
overextended by the unaccustomed demands of recurring SSCs. In other cases, the force
does not exist anywhere, sometimes because of the lack of reliable historical experience or
planning data to determine requirements. This is a factor in the shortfalls in military police
assets to conduct internment and resettlement functions with POWs and refugees. The
32
complicated multi-national and multi-agency environment of SSCs has also created a host of
new requirements not foreseen by planners used to combat operations.
Some deficiencies can be handled by training and equipping CS/CSS units to be more
versatile, but most fixes to this problem are not that easy. To effectively increase its CS/CSS
personnel and assets available for SSCs, the Army will have to invest in that force structure,
particularly providing more active component assets for theater or echelon above corps
tasks. Utilizing scenarios included in the DoD Fiscal Years 2000-2005 Defense Planning
Guidance, the Reserve Component Employment Study 2005 determined that the Army
needed 230 new CS/CSS units to be able to conduct SSCs for 60 days without RC
augmentation. 83 The list covers many of the shortages revealed by recent AARs, and would
be a good place to start to determine expanded requirements.
Strengthen Civilian Agencies. Though this is not something the Army can do directly, it is
often a solution presented by those who believe the service should not be involved in any
nation-building, as well as by departmental secretaries and officials advocating the roles of
their organizations. In some form this solution needs to be adopted anyway, though there is
an obvious threat that reductions might be made accordingly in the DoD budget. Ideally, the
course of military involvement in a contingency should go according to Figure 7 that
illustrates the handoff to civilian and indigenous agencies, but that process can take a very
long time and rarely reduces or eliminates all military requirements. One of the objectives of
the recent Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 56 on "Managing Complex Contingency
Operations" is to facilitate this process and "reduce pressure on the military to expand its
involvement in unplanned ways," 84 but the interagency process still has far to go in order to
achieve PDD 56's lofty goals. A distinguished and disparate group of participants at a recent
Post Conflict Strategic Requirements Workshop conducted by the Army War College's
33
34
Center for Strategic Leadership (CSL) agreed wholeheartedly on the importance of
extended military involvement in the operational stabilization phase. The list of tasks they
developed generally agreed with those mentioned above from ARCENT, though the CSL
conferees put more emphasis on law and order roles and were less optimistic about any kind
of timely military withdrawal. 85 They emphasized that nothing could be accomplished
without establishment of the secure environment on the ground that only the Army could
maintain. Recent killings in West Timor of staff members of the U.N. High Commissioner
for Refugees have highlighted the essential role military forces perform in all relief efforts. 86
Attendees also agreed that the lack of quick response capability of civilian agencies
and problems coordinating them would insure that the military would bear the brunt of all
essential tasks in rebuilding and reorganizing a failed or war-torn state for a long time. For
instance, a representative from the Justice Department specializing in setting up police forces
stated that even with proper funding and commitment, it takes at least 9 months to have a
viable force, and recent experiences show that to be an optimistic estimate. 87 The good news
from this conclusion for DoD is that there is widespread consensus about its essential role in
such operations and its budget is probably secure. However, the implication for the Army is
that there is no foreseeable future reduction in the nation-building or nation assistance roles
that SSCs demand from it. Some relief from this burden could result from practices that
have developed to contract services to companies like Brown and Root, but these activities
have recently come under fire from the General Accounting Office (GAO) for their
costliness and inefficiency, and suffer from the same limitations as operations by other
civilian agencies. 88
Recommendations and Conclusions.
Primary Recommendation: The Army must be trained and structured to execute some degree of
35
nation-building during the stabilization phase of SSCs. Recently the Undersecretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness told a group of defense correspondents that in order to prevent
future wars the U.S. military is in the nation-building business to stay, and its leaders need to
accept the fact that the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines so engaged believe it is an
important mission. 89 His assertion is supported by anecdotes from the field. For example,
soldiers interviewed in Nova Brdo, Kosovo, emphatically expressed their support for nationbuilding. One of them announced, "With every plate of glass we replace in a window, with
every door we install, we're helping these people get back on their feet." He also described
the importance of patching a child's broken arm and giving a mother blankets to keep her
children warm. He concluded, "With every town that we help, we're helping the nation get
stronger."90 While military leaders and security advisers for the incoming Bush
administration have often expressed resistance to employing the U.S. Army in nationbuilding, recent history demonstrates it will occur anyway. Being prepared to conduct such
operations will avoid a sense of "mission creep" when they inevitably have to be performed.
Dag Hammerskold once said, "Peacekeeping is not a job for soldiers, but only a
soldier can do it."91 The same might be true for nation-building, especially during the earliest
stages of the stabilization phase before a safe and secure environment has been established
and civilian agencies have been able to build up their resources. Accepting nation-building or
increased nation assistance as a mission has major implications for military involvement in
SSCs, especially in the engagement and stabilization phases, but it would also bring service
attitudes, doctrine, force structure, and training into line with the reality of what is happening
in the field. This adjustment also probably will require congressional action to carefully alter
legal and fiscal constraints about such military activities. A national strategy relying heavily
on engagement will also benefit from better prioritization of those activities between regions,
36
a process that could be facilitated by a more thorough and definitive TEP review process.
Secondary Recommendations. A future of continuous and cumulative SSCs has significant
implications for the Army, and the following recommendations should better prepare it to
successfully accomplish its missions:
1. Create truly multi-capable units structured, trained, and committed to both winning
MTWs and handling SSCs.
2. Increase the ability of units at all levels to train for, plan, and execute stabilization
phase tasks.
3. Increase the Army's overall CS/CSS force structure to fix those recurring shortfalls
that appear in executing SSCs.
4. Realign CS/CSS force structure between active and reserve components to better
meet the demands of SSCs.
5. Ensure adequate focus is placed on the planning and execution of stabilization
phase tasks at the Command and General Staff College and the Army War College.
6. Develop planning metrics for determining stabilization phase requirements for
issues like POWs and refugees.
At a recent strategy conference, Admiral (Retired) William Owens remarked that the
Army remains "the most relevant service" for today's American security needs.92 With some
of the adjustments suggested here, it should be able to maintain that relevance and perform
its missions even better. Though T.R Fehrenbach's quote that opens this monograph was
inspired by the war in Korea 50 years ago, it is also relevant to the peacekeeping role of the
Army in Kosovo and Bosnia today. Soldiers are there to protect the inhabitants and facilitate
their return to the civilized world. No other American organization can perform both those
roles.
37
ENDNOTES
1. T.R. Fehrenbach, This Kind of War: A Study in Unpreparedness, New York: Pocket Books, 1964, p.
454. Relevance of this quote brought to my attention by Colonel Dennis Murphy, Center for Strategic
Leadership, USAWC.
2. Richard F. Grimmett, Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-1999, Washington,
DC: Congressional Research Service, May 1999.
3. Center for Army Analysis, "Stochastic Analysis of Resources for Deployments and Excursions: A
Historical Perspective," December 2000.
4. Dr. Pat Pentland and F.G. Hoffman, U.S. Commision on National Security/21st Century, "A
Forward Looking Examination of U.S. National Security," Mahan Scholars Presentation, October 20, 2000.
5. "Stochastic Analysis," U.S. Army Program Analysis and Evaluation Directorate, America's Army . . .
into the 21st Century, Washington, DC: HQDA, 1997, p. 5.
6. See the 1997 National Military Strategy, Shape, Respond, Prepare Now--A Military Strategy for a New
Era, and the 1999 National Security Strategy, A National Security Strategy for a New Century.
7. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual 3113.01A, Theater Engagement Planning, May 31, 2000.
8. Thomas M. Jordan, Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., and Thomas-Durell Young, "Shaping" the World
Through "Engagement": Assessing the Department of Defense's Theater Engagement Planning Process, Carlisle, PA:
Strategic Studies Institute, April 2000, pp. 17-27.
9. Institute of Land Warfare, AUSA, The Research, Development and Acquisition "Death Spiral": Future
Readiness at Risk, Washington, DC: AUSA, October 2000, p. 5.
10. First Draft of FM 3-50, Decisive Force: The Army in Theater Operations, Washington, DC: HQDA,
July 2000, pp. 4-5.
11. Alexander L. George and Richard Smoke, Deterrence in American Foreign Policy: Theory and Practice,
New York: Columbia University Press, 1974, p. 64.
38
12. "Operation Golden Pheasant, Honduras, 1988," on the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment
webpage, http://www.bragg.army.mil/AFVC-A/hondopanamahistory.htm; "Operation Golden Pheasant" on FAS
Military Analysis Network webpage, http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/golden_pheasant.htm.
13. W. Eric Herr, Operation Vigilant Warrior, School of Advanced Airpower Studies: Maxwell AFB,
AL, June 1996; Third Army Pamphlet, "The Role of Coalition Task Force-Kuwait: The U.N.-Iraq Crisis of
1997-1998," furnished to the author by Colonel John Bonin, U.S. Army War College.
14. "Army Wartime Executive Agency Requirements (WEAR)," from CENTCOM Theater Support
Command Briefing, September 2000, furnished by Lieutenant Colonel Gregg Gross, CENTCOM J-4,
MacDill AFB, FL; "Army Inter-Service Logistics Support Requirements," briefing provided on December 12,
2000, by Mr. David Pearsall, CALIBRE Systems, currently working under contract for HQDA, ODCSOPS.
These WEAR can be a heavy drain on Army resources. Total Army Analysis 05 concluded that in a 2 MTW
scenario, over 57,000 Army CS/CSS soldiers would be needed to provide logistics support to other services.
The bulk of the burden falls on chemical, quartermaster, and transportation units. The full WEAR list
includes: Inland Class I Support; Class III Bulk and Package; Operation of Common User Ocean Terminals;
Intermodal Container Management; Common User Land Transportation in Theater; Military Customs
Inspection Program; Military Troop Construction; Airdrop Equipment and Supplies; Power Generation
Equipment and Systems; Land Based Water Resources; Overland POL Support (Distribution); Military Postal
Service; DOD Enemy POW and Detainee Program; Military Veterinary Support; Medical Evacuation on the
Battlefield; Mortuary Services/Graves Registration; Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition; Chemical
Munitions; Chemical Protective Clothing and Equipment; NBC Decontamination, Reconnaissance, and
Detection; Disposal of Waste Explosives and Munitions; Medical Treatment for POWs and Civilians;
Communications Liaison Teams; Civil Affairs Support; Locomotive and Rail Management; Traffic Regulation
on Designated Routes; Contracting Support; Single Item Manager for Class VIII Support; Water Support for
POWs, Refugees, and Displaced Persons; Medical Support for Noncombatant Evacuations; Civilian
Personnel Program; Optical Fabrication and Repair. Besides the additional responsibilities for U.N.
peacekeepers and the Marines mentioned in the text, the Army also handles blood supplies for the Air Force.
15. Quoted by Ernest Blazar, "Inside The Ring," Washington Times, December 18, 1998, p. 7.
39
16. United States General Accounting Office, Air Force Structure: Air Force Expeditionary Concept Offers
Benefits but Effects Should Be Assessed, GAO/NSIAD-00-201, August 2000. The report criticizes USAF for not
having quantifiable goals and systematic data collection and analysis to determine the real effect of the
reorganization, and also notes that any major conflict will necessitate crisis action planning to pool assets
from all AEFs.
17. "The Zapping of Iraq," Economist, August 19-25, 2000; "Iraq: Allied Bombing," The New York
Times, August 29, 2000.
18. Warren P. Strobel, "Freed From Saddam's Grip," U.S. News & World Report, September 11, 2000.
Recent Iraqi incursions into the exclusion zone and more displaced Kurds fleeing there from other areas in
Northern Iraq have raised further questions about the effectiveness of the no-fly zone. "Saddam Is Out Of
His Box," Charleston Post and Courier, December 18, 2000.
19. Congressional Budget Office, Making Peace While Staying Ready for War: The Challenges of U.S.
Military Participation in Peace Operations, December 1999, Chapter II, pp. 1-2. Many of these costs of
contingency operations are funded in supplemental appropriations, but "raids" on operating funds are often
needed to cover expenses until subsequent funding is provided. This has an adverse impact on operations and
maintenance accounts, causing additional service strains.
20. Operations were conducted superbly and quickly in a complex situation with difficult terrain,
many civilians, and restrained rules of engagement, that required intricate joint planning and execution.
21. John T. Fishel, The Fog of Peace: Planning and Executing the Restoration of Panama, Carlisle, PA:
Strategic Studies Institute, April 1992, p. 7.
22. Thomas Donnelly, Margaret Roth, and Caleb Baker, Operation Just Cause: The Storming of Panama,
New York: Lexington Books, 1991; America's Army . . . into the 21st Century, p. 5.
23. Fishel, pp. 29-63.
24. U.S. Army War College, American War Plans Special Text-2001, Carlisle Barracks, PA: USAWC,
November 2000, pp. 233-306.
25. Lieutenant Colonel John Fishel and Major Richard Downie, "Taking Responsibility for Our
Actions? Establishing Order and Stability in Panama," Military Review, April 1992, No. 66, pp. 69-70.
40
26. Fishel and Downie, pp. 70-75; Oral History Interview JCIT 097Z of Lieutenant General Carmen
Cavezza by Dr. Larry Yates, Dr. Robert Wright, and Mr. Joe Huddleston, "Joint Task Force South in
Operation Just Cause," conducted at Fort Lewis, WA, April 30, 1992, available on the U.S. Army Center of
Military History website, http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/documents/panama/jcit/JCIT97Z.htm.
27. Cavezza Interview; Fishel, pp. 38, 58-59.
28. Cavezza Interview. Lieutenant General Cavezza expressed doubt, however, that he could have
trained his unit adequately for the METL required by the complexities of the stability operations he faced.
29. Fishel, p. 63.
30. Kenneth Allard, Somalia Operations: Lessons Learned, Washington, DC: National Defense University
Press, 1995, p. 14.
31. Ibid., pp. 21-85; America's Army . . . into the 21st Century, p. 5.
32. Richard C. Hottelot, "A New Somalia?" Christian Science Monitor, August 23, 2000, p. 8.
33. U.S. General Accounting Office, Peace Operations: U.S. Costs in Support of Haiti, Former Yugoslavia,
Somalia, and Rwanda, GAO/NSIAD-96-38, March 1996.
34. CINCUSACOM CD-ROM, Operation UPHOLD DEMOCRACY: U.S. Forces in Haiti, 1997,
executive level AAR pamphlet, pp. 1-13.
35. Joint Universal Lessons Learned System entries 10451-37950 and 10754-92362, USACOM CDROM.
36. David Bentley and Robert Oakley, "Peace Operations: A Comparison of Somalia and Haiti,"
National Defense University Strategic Forum No. 30, May 1995, available on NDU website at
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/forum30.html.
37. AAR, pp. 2-9, USACOM CD-ROM.
38. Haiti Planning Group, "Draft Interagency Checklist for Restoration of Essential Services,"
furnished to author by Colonel Mike Fitzgerald, CENTCOM J-5; America's Army . . . into the 21st Century, p. 5.
41
39. Interview of Lieutenant Colonel Karl Warner by Colonel Dennis Mroczkowski, JTF-190
Operation UPHOLD DEMOCRACY AAR, 266-267, USACOM CD-ROM.
40. Interview of Colonel Gerald Palmer by Major Christopher Clark, JTF-190 Operation UPHOLD
DEMOCRACY AAR, 269, USACOM CD-ROM.
41. Chronology, Operation UPHOLD DEMOCRACY, USACOM CD-ROM.
42. This expansion of missions is evident from the Operation UPHOLD DEMOCRACY Logistics
Support Operations briefing from the USACOM CD-ROM.
43. Warner Interview, p. 267.
44. JULLS entry 10829-67459, USACOM CD-ROM.
45. Memorandum, From 358th Civil Affairs Brigade to Commanding General, U.S. Army Civil
Affairs and Psychological Operations Command, SUBJECT: After Action Report, USACOM Operation
Uphold/Maintain Democracy, May 26, 1995, p. 3, USACOM CD-ROM.
46. JULLS entry 11566-55234, USACOM CD-ROM.
47. JULLS entries 00676-58398, 00969-70100, 01040-06216, 02656-20553, 10355-63106, 1044774360, 10758-27517, 11558-362234, 11640-05029, 11640-61460, 50257-20594, 50258-39326, 92638-89373,
USACOM CD-ROM.
48. U.S. General Accounting Office, Foreign Assistance: Any Further Aid to Haitian Justice System Should be
Linked to Perfor mance-Related Conditions, GAO-01-24, October 2000; "Haiti is Nightmare for U.S.," Charleston
Post and Courier, October 5, 2000; "Haiti's Disappearing Democracy," The New York Times, November 28,
2000; Ben Barber, "U.S. Officials See Failed Haiti Policy," Washington Times, November 29, 2000; "Annan
Urges End to U.N. Mission in Haiti," The New York Times, November 29, 2000.
49. USGAO, Peace Operations: U.S. Costs in Support of Haiti, Former Yugoslavia, Somalia, and Rwanda, pp.
6-7.
50. Steven R. Bowman, Bosnia & Macedonia: U.S. Military Operations, Washington, DC: Congressional
Research Service, June 1995, p. 12; Julie Kim, Macedonia: Conflict Spillover Prevention, Washington, DC:
Congressional Research Service, July 1998.
42
51. "Army Has Begun Reviewing Options For Long-Term Balkan Presence," Inside the Pentagon,
October 26, 2000; Steven Lee Myers, "Army Will Give National Guard The Entire U.S. Role In Bosnia," The
New York Times, December 5, 2000.
52. Gregory Piatt, "A Good Bit Of Progress . . . A Long Way To Go," European Stars and Stripes,
September 17, 2000, p. 2; "UN-NATO Court Setup In Kosovo Faulted," The New York Times, October 20,
2000; Donald G. McNeil, Jr., The New York Times, November 22, 2000; Emily Kelly, "Peacekeeping With An
Iron Fist," Stars and Stripes Omnimedia, November 29, 2000; Major General Donald Campbell, Memorandum
for Record, SUBJECT: Trip Report for Reserve Component (RC), Judge Advocate General (JAG) Legal
Assessment Team for Kosovo deployed between May 26 and June 5, 2000, June 9, 2000, copy furnished to
author by Lieutenant Colonel Peter Menk.
53. Headquarters, U.S. Army Europe, After Action Report: Operation Joint Guard, November 1998, pp.
3-2, 3-21 to 3-23.
54. Ibid., p. 9-26.
55. Ibid., p. 9-36.
56. Headquarters, U.S. Army Europe, Operation Joint Endeavor: After Action Report, May 1997, p. 235.
57. Operation Joint Guard, pp. 4-5, 5-18. Problems were so acute that the AAR asked for both the
Reserves and National Guard to realign their units and specialties for peacekeeping missions.
58. Colonel David A. Kingston, Towards a More Relevant Engineer Command, Carlisle Barracks, PA:
USAWC, 2000; Operation Joint Endeavor, pp. 206, 210.
59 Operation Joint Endeavor, pp. 130-131.
60. Center for Army Lessons Learned, Joint Military Commissions: Lessons Learned From Operation Joint
Endeavor, May 1996. The large requirement for military liaison with the myriad agencies involved in such
contingencies was a key point of discussion at a recent Post Conflict Strategic Requirements Workshop
conducted by the Center for Strategic Leadership at the USAWC from November 28-30, 2000.
43
61. Operation Joint Endeavor, pp. 78-94; Lieutenant Colonel Melissa E. Patrick, Intelligence in Support
Operations: The Story of Task Force Eagle and Operation Joint Endeavor, Carlisle Barracks, PA: USAWC, 2000.
62. "Outdated Equipment, Organizational Issues Hamper Effective PSYOPS," Inside the Pentagon,
September 28, 2000, p. 1.
63. ADM (Ret) Leighton W. Smith, "NATO's IFOR in Action: Lessons from the Bosnian Peace
Support Operations," National Defense University Strategic Forum No. 154, January 1999, available on the
NDU website at http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/forum154.html; R. Jeffrey Smith, "Ethnic Hatred Permeates
Bosnia's Bitter Peace," The Washington Post, November 10, 2000, p. 30; Paul Watson, "Bosnian Vote Seen As
A Setback," Los Angeles Times, November 14, 2000, p. 9.
64. Major Kenneth O. McCreedy, Planning the Peace: Operation Eclipse and the Occupation of Germany, Fort
Leavenworth, KS: School of Advanced Military Studies, 1995.
65. John J. Yeosock, remarks in "What We Should Have Done Differently," Part II of In the Wake of
the Storm: Gulf War Commanders Discuss Desert Storm, Wheaton, IL: Cantigny First Division Foundation, 2000, p.
25.
66. Ibid, p. 29; Janet A. McDonnell, After Desert Storm: The U.S. Army and the Reconstruction of Kuwait,
Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1999.
67. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Publication 1-02, DOD Dictionary of Military and
Associated Terms, September 1, 2000, p. 312.
68. Richard G. Catoire, "A CINC for Sub -Saharan Africa? Rethinking the Unified Command Plan,"
Parameters, Vol. XXX, No. 4, Winter 2000-01, p. 117, n. 56.
69. Interview by author of Colonel Mike Fitzgerald, CENTCOM J-5, MacDill AFB, FL, October 11,
2000; Colonel John Bonin, Notes on ARCENT Exercise Internal Look, November 21, 2000, copy provided
to author by Colonel Bonin, USAWC.
70 Stephen J. Hosmer, et al., Bettering the Balance: Large Wars and Small Contingencies, RAND Arroyo
Center, 1997, p. 2, available on the RAND website at http://www.rand.org/publications/IP/IP167/ .
71. Making Peace While Staying Ready for War, Chap. II, p. 5.
44
72. USGAO, Contingency Operations: Providing Critical Capabilities Poses Challenges, GAO/NSIAD -00-164,
July 2000, p. 5.
73. USGAO, Bosnia: Military Services Providing Needed Capabilities but a Few Challenges Emerging,
GAO/NSIAD-98-160, April 1998, pp. 7-9. These units include Broadcast Public Affairs Detachments,
Replacement Battalion Headquarters, Rear Tactical Operations Centers, Target Acquisition Detachments,
Movement Control Battalion Headquarters, Centralized Movement Control Teams, Air Terminal Movement
Control Teams, Public Affairs Detachments, Engineering Fire Fighter Detachments, Military History
Detachments, and Medical Distribution Units.
74. America's Army . . . into the 21st Century, p. 9. These numbers are often misrepresented. For
instance, Congressional Budget Office reports cite statistics that show 68 percent of Army "support forces"
are in the RC, but they do not break down larger units into CS, CSS, or combat arms components.
Congressional Budget Office, Structuring the Active and Reserve Army for the 21st Century, Washington, DC: CBO,
December 1997, Summary, pp. 4, 8. Sources that state 70 percent of the Army's CS/CSS are in the RC are
misleading since they do not properly factor in divisional CS/CSS elements.
75. Colonel Harry G. Summers, Jr., "The Army After Vietnam," in Kenneth J. Hagan and William B.
Roberts, eds., Against All Enemies, New York: Greenwood Press, 1986, p. 363.
76. Reserve Forces Policy Board, Reserve Component Programs, Washington, DC: Office of the Secretary
of Defense, March 2000, p. xxvii; USGAO, Force Structure: Army Is Integrating Active and Reserve Combat Forces,
but Challenges Remain, GAO/NSIAD-00-162, July 2000.
77. David T. Fautua, "Army Citizen-Soldiers: Active, Guard, And Reserve Leaders Remain Silent
About Overuse Of Reserve Components," Armed Forces Journal International, September 2000, pp. 72-74.
78. Steven Lee Myers, "Military Reserves Are Falling Short in Finding Recruits," The New York Times,
August 28, 2000, p. 1; Marsha Low, "Military Reserves Fall Short," Detroit Free Press, September 11, 2000;
Myers, "Fallout in Texas From Bosnia Duty," The New York Times, September 15, 2000; David Foster, "More
Missions For Part-Time Soldiers Strain Lives At Home," Boston Globe, September 23, 2000, p. 4; Deborah
Martinez, "Reserve Ranks Dwindle As Number of Deployments Increases," Corpus Christi Caller-Times,
September 24, 2000; "U.S. Leans Too Heavily on Guard, Reserves," Austin American-Statesman, October 11,
2000, p. 10.
45
79. Making Peace While Staying Ready for War, Summary, p. 7.
80. "Pentagon Crafts 'Balkan Disengagement Plan' In Event Of Major War," Inside The Pentagon,
September 7, 2000, p. 1.
81. Major General William A. Navas, Jr., Army National Guard Fiscal Year 1999 Posture Statement,
Arlington, VA: ANG Office of Policy and Communication, 1999, p. 7-8; Army National Guard Bureau,
"Army National Guard Division Redesign Study Phase I Update," briefing, October 13, 1999.
82. "Stochastic Analysis."
83. Reserve Component Employment Study Group, Reserve Component Employment Study 2005 Study
Report, Washington, DC: DoD, 1999, pp. 1, 12-13, Annex E. The Study Group recommended against these
changes mainly because of the cost to develop new force structure and because giving the AC this capacity to
conduct SSCs independent of the RC would take away the Army's "political check and balance" to prevent
the Executive Branch from committing substantial troops to an SSC without a debate in Congress on
mobilization. The latter rationale seems a questionable usurping of the President's prerogative and could have
the result of limiting Army utility and increasing response time. The policy has also contributed to the RC
strains mentioned in this study, and has not produced much Congressional discussion about the large
numbers of reservists and National Guardsmen deploying to the Balkans. It can therefore be criticized for its
effectiveness as well as its legality.
84. White Paper, "Managing Complex Contingency Operations," May 1997, available on The White
House website, http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/NSC/html/documents/NSCDoc2.html.
85. The workshop was conducted from November 28-30, 2000, and included many former
ambassadors and civilian administrators familiar with stabilization phase operations in Europe and Africa.
86. Christopher S. Wren, "Where Troops Fear To Tread, Aid Workers Are At Risk," The New York
Times, November 19, 2000. For a thorough evaluation of the challenges of providing security for international
relief operations, see Michael J. Dziedzic, "Protection for Humanitarian Relief Operations," National Defense
University Strategic Forum No. 168, December 1999, available on NDU website at
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/forum168.html.
46
87. It took almost a year and a half for U.N. Civilian Police and Italian Carabinieri to relieve
American troops of some of their law enforcement duties in Kosovo, and a local police force is still being
formed. Bosnia has a working indigenous force, but six U.N. policemen frustrated with its corruption recently
had to resign after "exceeding their authority" and acting on their own to liberate women forced into
prostitution. Gregory Piatt, "KFOR Soldiers' Roles Changing In Kososvo," European Stars and Stripes,
November 27, 2000, p. 3; Colum Lynch, "Six U.N. Officers In Bosnia Resign After Unauthorized Raid," The
Washington Post, November 30, 2000, p. 20. A recent GAO study examining the lack of progress in reforming
the Bosnian law enforcement and judicial systems has concluded, "Senior Bosnian officials have not
demonstrated the will to address the problem of crime and corruption and work toward a society based on
the rule of law." USGAO, Bosnia Peace Operations: Crime and Corruption Threaten Successful Implementation of the
Dayton Peace Agreement, GAO/NSIAD -00-156, July 2000.
88. USGAO, Contingency Operations: Army Should Do More to Control Contract Cost in the Balkans,
GAO/NSIAD-00-225, September 2000.
89. Dale Eisman, "Top Defense Official Defends U.S. Military's Role As Peacekeeper," Norfolk
Virginian-Pilot, November 15, 2000.
90. Emily Kelley, "GIs Reluctant To Leave Kosovo Town," Stars and Stripes Omnimedia, November
28, 2000.
91. Quoted in Army Field Manual 100-23, Peace Operations, Washington, DC: HQDA, December
1994, p. 1.
92. Remarks by Admiral (Ret.) William Owens on Panel 6 of IFPA-Fletcher Conference 2000,
"National Strategies and Capabilities for a Changing World," Arlington, VA, November 16, 2000.
47
48
U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE
Major General Robert R. Ivany
Commandant
*****
STRATEGIC STUDIES INSTITUTE
Director
Professor Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr.
Director of Research
Dr. Earl H. Tilford, Jr.
Author
Dr. Conrad C. Crane
Director of Publications and Production
Ms. Marianne P. Cowling
Publications Assistant
Ms. Rita A. Rummel
*****
Composition
Mrs. Christine A. Williams
Cover Artist
Mr. James E. Kistler